Return To The Moon, Everything Old is New again Options

[RedSky]

Here, supposedly, is a sneek peak at the upcoming... not yet released... report on the CEV/ Return to the Moon architecture:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/graph...07/18731963.jpg

Here's the full article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom...=orl-home-promo

Look familiar? Basically an Apollo CSM (=CEV), a beefed up LM (4-man... but I'm sure due to budget and weight... will be cut back to 3 or 2 person).

Instead of one launch on a Saturn V equivalent, there is a crew launch CEV on a single SRB "stick" configuration, and the S4B-LM piece on the shuttle-derived vertical in-line cargo launcher... Seen here, for those who haven't run across this site yet:

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/media-images.htm

[MahFL]

That graphic has an error on it, pic #6 shows the Lunar Lander and the Ascent modules docking around the Moon with the CEV. I wonder if it will ever happen though ?

[remcook]

do I see solid rocket boosters?

edit- I see, not for manned purposes...

[djellison]

No - you do - the design for the CEV launcher is basically a shuttle SRB with a liquid upperstage. Arguably the most silly idea for some time - the thrust and thus acceleration profile will be astonishing.

Doug

[dvandorn]

You can vary the nozzle and the burn cavity in a solid to change the thrust and the burn duration -- so, in theory, you *could* design the SRB to have a lower initial thrust-to-weight ratio. Of course, you'd be reducing the motor's ISP, too.

What the heck is wrong with using a Delta IV or an Atlas V for the CEV, anyway???

-the other Doug

[djellison]

What the heck is wrong with using a Delta IV or an Atlas V for the CEV, anyway???

It doesnt keep the shuttle contractors happy

Doug

[dvandorn]

I would think the heavy-life unmanned Shuttle variants (remarkably like the old Shuttle-C variant designs) would keep the Shuttle contractors happy. And it'll keep the guys and gals who will fly the CEV a lot happier if they don't have to deal with a 50-G liftoff crunch.

That SRB launcher will likely take off like a model rocket -- SWOOOOOSH and it's suddenly ten miles up!

-the other Doug

[RedSky]

Yeah, it seems ATK (formerly Morton-Thiokol) the makers of the SRB's are really pulling out all the PR stops with that web site and SRB/CEV launch amimations I've already started seeing on the cable news channels as the "next step".

Well, the in-cabin launch video views should look like those late 1950's films of the guys in the centerfuge at 15G with their cheeks and lips pulled back behind their ears
Lucky it'll only last 2 minutes or so, I guess... oh, maybe 2 1/2 minutes with a 5-segment SRB...

[deglr6328]

Wow what an original and imaginative solution. NOT. sigh.... whatever. Wake me up when China does something new and interesting and gets there in 10 years before we even get the vehicles built. What's even interesting on the Moon anyway? Its just a big cratered dustball. no chance of life, no sign of past water, no atmosphere, no tectonics or complex geology, no nothing. So far as I can see the only reason to go there anymore at all is to do science we can't do here (quiet radio observation, diffraction limited visible telescopes and such), and I don't see any current emphasis on these real science projects which could be done there. I guess it's just not sexycool enough for the current administration when compared with the "use the Moon as a jumping off point to Mars" nonsense.

[Bob Shaw]

Here, supposedly, is a sneek peak at the upcoming...  not yet released... report on the CEV/ Return to the Moon architecture:

Y'know, if they only put some wings on that 'SafeSimpleSoon' heavy-lift variant's upper stage, they could fly it back to the launch site and reuse the expensive parts, like the engines. I bet the running costs would be so low that it'd be possible to fly tourist flights!

(ducks and runs)

[djellison]

I think they should be developing LFFB's ( an old Shuttle design derivative, replacing the SRB's with liquid fueled boosters that had short stub wings like a massive scaled up tomahawk - and flew back to KSC to land afer launch )

then- an LFFB derrived CEV LV would make a lot of sense

Doug

[Phil Stooke]

"What's even interesting on the Moon anyway? Its just a big cratered dustball. no chance of life, no sign of past water, no atmosphere, no tectonics or complex geology, no nothing."

Thus sprach deglr6328.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go unanswered. The Moon is not uninteresting. It is more complex than the above suggests, with at least 2, maybe 3, billion years of volcanism, with tectonics relating to basin fill compensation, and the best place we will ever be able to get to easily, to study impact processes at all scales. Its geologic history is poorly understood because we never sampled the oldest rocks, the oldest or youngest volcanics, or many of the unique features (Reiner gamma, the D-caldera and the SW Orientale plume deposit being but three).

Plus of course the possibliity of polar volatiles and all they would reveal about solar system history... and ... well, there's lots more. The Moon is very different from Earth, that's obvious, and we want to understand it as well as possible so it can serve as the key to understanding Mercury, early Mars, etc. The Earth and the Moon are the twin foundations of modern planetary science.

Astronomy from the Moon is actually far less enticing than it used to be. Farside radio astronomy is still a reasonable thing to suggest, but the main argument for optical astronomy used to be stability... the solid Moon was more stable than an orbiting scope. But we are now so good at holding things steady - as the Hubble deep fields show - that it's not much of an issue. Even interferometry is probably doable in space as much as on the Moon. And I might point out that even the farside isn't as radio quiet as it used to be, with deep space probes like Cassini and MER broadcasting from beyond... though presumably not a big problem, at least they are out there.

I want to go back to the Moon because it's inherently interesting in its own right. And I personally think Mars is going to be much more difficult than it's given credit for. We need things to do before Mars even becomes possible, or we'll all croak before anything happens. At least a decade of routine lunar operations would be the best preparation for Mars.

I am now going on vacation. Please don't let anything happen for two weeks. 'Kay?

Phil

[deglr6328]

Oh alright, I'll grant that the Moon may have some more interesting secrets to give up but they just don't seem as captivating to me (a non-geologist) as do so many other places in the Solar System. Anyway, what is "basin fill compensation"? I thought tectonics on the Moon were considered impossible because it was thought to have a solid core....

[RedSky]

Excellent overview of all this "new vision" thing just out on Keith Cowing's SpaceRef.com:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055

And get a load of this stable of potential STS-derived launchers:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.33.l.jpg

Well, it looks like that futuristic icon from the past of a space plane is gone for good.
Too bad.... I always was inspired by this design, and used to have to model of it:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vonn1956.htm

Hmmmm.... maybe we should just outsource / contract the whole CEV thing and fund development of Russia's proposed Kliper and put it on top of an STS-derived launcher! It comes in several versions, one with wings, seats six, and can stay on orbit (i.e., docked to the ISS) for a year. It, at least, seems to be more forward-looking than going back to an updated/enlarged Apollo CSM.

[dvandorn]

Oh alright, I'll grant that the Moon may have some more interesting secrets to give up but they just don't seem as captivating to me (a non-geologist) as do so many other places in the Solar System.  Anyway, what is "basin fill compensation"? I thought tectonics on the Moon were considered impossible because it was thought to have a solid core....

First off, the latest thinking is that the Moon actually still has a molten core -- either that, or it has a molten near-core mantle that allows the core to move within the Moon. Because orbital studies seem to show that the Moon's core rotates in a slightly different plane than the rest of the Moon does. So, either the core is still molten, or the core can move through a molten "sheath" relative to the rest of the Moon.

One of the more fascinating models of lunar composition right now says that the core is molten nickel-iron, surrounded by a solid layer of primitive chondritic material, covered with a now-solid mantle that only completely congealed about a billion years ago, and topped off with the battered and brecciated megaregolith of feldspathic highlands and basaltic maria.

As for basin fill compensation -- the Moon displays tectonic activity where basaltic lava flows have filled basins. The lava fill is actually heavier than the feldspathic rock of the crust onto which it was extruded, so after lava filled a basin, the rocks holding up the basin would sink under the weight. The whole thing reached an isostatic equilibrium after several hundred million years, but in the meantime great cracks (called graben) appeared where the centers of the circular maria sank and pulled themselves away from the fringes. Wrinkle ridges also appeared, as congealed lava surfaces piled into each other in rings around the heavier centers of the circular maria.

The graben and the wrinkle ridges are both genuine tectonic features. There are also some collapse features at antipodes to large basins that may represent tectonic actibity triggered by basin-forming impacts.

-the other Doug

[remcook]

Splitting manned and heavy unmanned launchers is not a bad idea though...

[RNeuhaus]

The solid roket booster, liquid propulsion are of old technologies dated from the decade 60. However, they are still necessary to put any object into the LEO. After that , I see that the technology has not yet improved much in utilizing other kind of propulsion: Electric propulsion utilizing the source from Sail Solar or nuke power to navigate from LEO to Moon and others planets.

The other thing that I am asking, I knew that the US Air force has captured some lost OVNI in long time ago by Nevada or New Mexico long time ago (around '30 to '40 decade) and I see that the man was not able to learn from the other kind of propulsion from the OVNI.

Rodolfo

[RedSky]

The other thing that I am asking, I knew that the US Air force has captured some lost OVNI in long time ago by Nevada or New Mexico long time ago (around '30 to '40 decade) and I see that the man was not able to learn from the other kind of propulsion from the OVNI.
Rodolfo

"OVNI"??? Does that translate into "UFO"? Are you referring to the 1947 Roswell, NM UFO crash story/mythology/whatever??? I think you're in the wrong forum.

Regarding other-than-chemical propulsion for out of LEO.... a nuclear power upper stage was in development in the 1960's (NERVA)... but cancelled. Lately, nuclear propulsion is (was?) being looked at again with Project Prometheus.

RedSky

(P.S. maybe the warp drive/anti-gravity drive/ quantum phase drive, etc. was too damaged in the crash to reverse-engineer)

[djellison]

RS - I agree, the UFO Nevada stuff isnt right for here.

Doug

[RNeuhaus]

"OVNI"???  Does that translate into "UFO"?  Are you referring to the 1947 Roswell, NM UFO crash story/mythology/whatever???  I think you're in the wrong forum.

RedSky and Doug, Sorry for the wrong forum with the kind of propulsion of UFO to send a man faster to moon. I apologize it.

Rodolfo

[paxdan]

What frustrates me most is that we have the technology, we've done it before yet it's gonna take longer this time around than the last. IMHO the crucial thing missing is the opposition.

At the moment I feel like NASA is standing in a tracksuit at the start of a race still waiting for the other guy to show up. No point exerting itself too hard until the competition arrives and there is something to prove.

I don't think we're gonna see a serious attempt on moon/mars 'till china decides to join the fun (or the private sector embarrasses the pants off everybody by making the whole spaceflight thing cheap and cheerful... go Rutan!). Anyway china now has more experience of spaceflight than the US did when JFK gave his 'before this decade is out' speech; +10% economic growth per annum, it wouldn't surprise me if they're there by 2020.

Anybody else think the current shuttle debacle (danger to crew aside) is a good thing? Boring a hole in LEO is just that. If were gonna send people into space they might as well go somewhere instead of paddling around in the shallows 200km up.

[dvandorn]

The solid roket booster, liquid propulsion are of old technologies dated from the decade 60. However, they are still necessary to put any object into the LEO. After that , I see that the technology has not yet improved much in utilizing other kind of propulsion: Electric propulsion utilizing the source from Sail Solar or nuke power to navigate from LEO to Moon and others planets...

The problem with using low-thrust, long-burn propulsion systems to send people to the Moon is they don't get you going fast enough, quickly enough.

The van Allen belts are really dangerous -- if you stay there for very long. The Apollo astronauts who went to the Moon spent only a few hours passing through the radiation belts, and they were going at some of the highest speeds they would attain while they traversed the belts.

And they still got a measurable dose of radiation. Not even close to a critical dose, but measurable.

Now, an ion or electric propulsion system is a good idea -- it accelerates a spacecraft slowly, over time, but because the thrust continues for days and weeks, the accumulated acceleration is potentially enormous.

But any of those propulsion systems, if used to get you from LEO to the Moon, would continually create a larger and larger Earth orbit, taking weeks to accelerate to an orbit large enough to place the spacecraft into the Moon's gravisphere. And you would spend many, many days at a stretch passing through the van Allen belts. Over and over.

You would need some really *serious* radiation hardening to build that kind of vehicle. I don't think we know how to do that, yet. At least not well enough to commit a crew's lives to.

The same problem applies to using aerobraking to decelerate returning lunar spacecraft into Earth orbit, possibly to dock with the ISS. Aerobraking requires a lot of passes through the upper atmosphere, starting with a very large, very elliptical orbit and reducing a little speed on each pass to reduce the apogee a few hundred km on every pass, until you're in a position to establish a circular orbit at ISS altitudes.

And that orbit's apogee would slowly dip through the van Allen belts, over and over, and of course since the spacecraft slows down at apogee, it would spend very long hours on each aerobraking orbit traversing the hearts of the radiation belts.

For the foreseeable future, if we're going to fly men to the Moon and beyond, I think we need to use whatever it takes to build up a really fast exit from LEO, to minimize the time spent in the van Allen belts. Or else you risk damaging your spacecraft, not to mention your crew...

-the other Doug

[RNeuhaus]

...
For the foreseeable future, if we're going to fly men to the Moon and beyond, I think we need to use whatever it takes to build up a really fast exit from LEO, to minimize the time spent in the van Allen belts.  Or else you risk damaging your spacecraft, not to mention your crew...

-the other Doug

I am very glad to hear of your very good explanation. I was not aware of many topics. The frigthening thing to pass the Van Alley Radiation Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt) where there is a high concentrations of sun radiations (X cosmic rays). Hence it is perfectely understandable that the manned space must travel thru it as short time as possible. About the slow accelaration of ion engine, I was afraid of that and I am accepting it. I think it should be a good candidate for long trips such as to Venus, Mars and beyond).

I like one of the proposal of Werner Von Braun, earth orbit rendezvous. It is safer for astrounauts who will reach to LEO (with up to 40 G??) by the SRB and docking with the 2nd stage LOX rocket sent by another SRB with external tank to impulse from LEO to moon.

Anyway I still wear diaper for space knowledge and this forum is great in sharing the knowledge, interests and ideas.

Rodolfo

P.D. Corrected the word: knowledgment to knowledge.

[deglr6328]

Anyway I still wear diaper for space knowledgment and this forum is great in sharing the knowledgement, interests and ideas.

Rodolfo

I....think something may have been lost in the translation on that one...

[MiniTES]

Just how much acceleration in G's would you get out of an unmodified SRB, assuming maybe a 20 ton payload plus the liquid-fueled upper stage?
Personally I think it's a good idea to use them if you can solve that problem - sure, you can't shut them down, but in reality how often do you shut off an engine during manned spaceflight? And it will be "simple", "soon", and inexpensive to develop. I would assume you can cut patterns in the fuel to keep the acceleration to an acceptable level.

[RNeuhaus]

I would assume you can cut patterns in the fuel to keep the acceleration to an acceptable level.

I imagine yes since the man cannot withstand an acceleration greater than 10 G for many seconds (I suppose it)

Rodolfo

[MiniTES]

I imagine yes since the man cannot withstand an acceleration greater than 10 G for many seconds (I suppose it)

Rodolfo

So what would the actual acceleration be from an unmodified SRB with regularly cut fuel?

[MiniTES]

I imagine yes since the man cannot withstand an acceleration greater than 10 G for many seconds (I suppose it)

Rodolfo

So what would the actual acceleration be from an unmodified SRB with regularly cut fuel?

[Ames]

So what would the actual acceleration be from an unmodified SRB with regularly cut fuel?

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle..._Rocket_Booster

Quotes 3,300,000 lbf (14.7 MN) at launch

[djellison]

14.7MN on an LV of 589 ton SRB + 80 ton 2nd stage+module = 21 m/s^2 or 2.2G

The real carefull issue is how to design the SRB to throttle down at the end of the burn - otherwise with 14.7 MN on a nearly empty SRB of 86.1 ton, you would have 9G

Doug

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The main thing that makes me nervous about using an SRB -- although they really have totally solved the Challenger leak problem -- is that solid motors have an unpleasant habit of blowing up suddenly, without any telemetry warning that would trigger a launch escape system.

[MiniTES]

The main thing that makes me nervous about using an SRB -- although they really have totally solved the Challenger leak problem -- is that solid motors have an unpleasant habit of blowing up suddenly, without any telemetry warning that would trigger a launch escape system.

But how many times has that happened to the Shuttle SRBs inflight?

[Ames]

14.7MN on an LV of 589 ton SRB + 80 ton 2nd stage+module = 21 m/s^2 or  2.2G

The real carefull issue is how to design the SRB to throttle down at the end of the burn - otherwise with 14.7 MN on a nearly empty SRB of 86.1 ton, you would have 9G

Doug

It's a little worse than that
F = ma
Takeoff (590ton full SRB)
a = 14700/(590 + 80) = 22 (m/s^2)
then add 1G!
3.2G

Orbit (87ton empty SRB)
a = 14700/(87 + 80) = 88 (m/s^2)
don't add 1G we are in orbit!
9G

The effects of drag will reduce the G experienced whilst punching through the atmosphere, but at takeoff and orbit this is zero.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

I'm pretty sure liftoff trust of the whole STS is about 28 MN, 1.7 MN per SSME gives about 11.5 MN for one SRB. This NASA page:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

gives 2,650,000 lbs per SRB. I'm with the metric system and can't translate this into MN exactly, but it should be right. 14.7 MN is to high.

Ames, why do you ADD 1G? The forces are in different directions (up and down). IMO you must substract it, but only at liftoff. Just before burnout, you fly almost parallel to the earth and the gravity effect ist pretty small.

Btw, I believe the SRB trust is reduced just before burnout right now. You do this by reducing the exposed fuel area in the booster.

Analyst

[djellison]

It's not fair to add the 1G on. I'm sat on a chair, and I dont really feel any acceleration going on, do you

Doug

[djellison]

2,650,000 lbs = http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=2650000lb...:en-US:official

11 787 787.3 newtons

or 11.7 MN

Doug

[chris]

It's not fair to add the 1G on. I'm sat on a chair, and I dont really feel any acceleration going on, do you

Doug

Fall off the chair. You might notice soething then.

Chris

[Ames]

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/techno...ewsref/srb.html

"Each booster has a thrust (sea level) of approximately 3,300,000 pounds at launch"

Have they uprated them?

[djellison]

3.3 M Lbs = 14.6 MN

Doug

[Ames]

Morton Thiokol (ATK)
http://www.atk.com/newsreleases2005/2005-07-26-discovery.asp

"Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM) provided more than 6 million pounds of thrust in the first two minutes of flight to help send the Space Shuttle Discovery on its historic return to flight mission."

Must have been uprated since the nasa figures were posted.

Ah! All is clear...

http://www.atk.com/RocketMotors/rocketmotors_rsrm.asp

"...each RSRM generates an *average* thrust of 2,600,000 pounds and burns for approximately 123 seconds..."

[MiniTES]

Even so I don't think it presents a problem. You can a) cut the fuel such that you don't get more than maybe 4 or 5 sustained Gs, which is uncomfortable but bearable, and b) even if you do have 9 Gs it wouldn't be for very long, and it certainly can be dealt with by tranied astronauts.

[Ames]

It's not fair to add the 1G on. I'm sat on a chair, and I dont really feel any acceleration going on, do you

Doug

I work at a PC all day
At the end of it I am glad to take the weight of my butt and stand up a while.
People ask me if I would like to sit down, but I say "no thanks, I have sat down all day and would rather stand" - makes people nervous!

I definitely *feel* the acceleration!

F = ma

[ilbasso]

In the postings that someone put up this week for about the CEV and the Shuttle-derived launchers, the maximum G-force that was listed for any of the SRB derivative launchers was 4G. And I think that max was for the SRB 1st stage/liquid 2nd stage combo, with the greatest acceleration in the 2nd stage. The max for any of the SRB stages was 3.8G.

[MiniTES]

In the postings that someone put up this week for about the CEV and the Shuttle-derived launchers, the maximum G-force that was listed for any of the SRB derivative launchers was 4G.  And I think that max was for the SRB 1st stage/liquid 2nd stage combo, with the greatest acceleration in the 2nd stage.  The max for any of the SRB stages was 3.8G.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - where did you see this?

Honestly I'm getting really tired of people making fun of the idea and calling it the "Boomstick" and whatnot. It's safe, proven, cheap, and capable, and 3.8G is not at all unreasonable. Should be cheaper with greater lift capacity than the EELVs. And also man-rated and flown much more than the EELVs.

[tty]

Ames, why do you ADD 1G? The forces are in different directions (up and down). IMO you must substract it, but only at liftoff. Just before burnout, you fly almost parallel to the earth and the gravity effect ist pretty small.
Analyst

You neither add nor subtract one g. Think of what happens if the thrust is equal to the weight of the rocket. The rocket will sit still on the pad and You will feel one g as usual. It is only the net acceleration that is added. Those 2,2 g consists of 1 + 1.2 g. The "1" is needed just to not fall back to Earth. If the engine cuts out you will experience zero g but be accelerating 9.81 ms^2 downwards.

That the gravity effect is essentially zero at burnout is because at that point you are in a free-fall orbit, or nearly so.

tty

[GregM]

New Cowling article (part 2), this time focusing on the process used to go with development of the new very heavy-lift LV.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1057

This is going to be a Saturn 5 class launcher. The version selected will be what was once called "Magnum" in delevopment studies years ago. A very powerful vehicle with large growth potential (ultimatly 200MT to LEO (!)).

As for the concerns of others concerning SRB safety for the other mid-heavy LV (known as "The Stick") to be developed for the CEV, remember that the STS SRB is one of the best understood LV stages ever built (if not the best), is already man-rated, and has the best launch success rate of any large LV stage flown more than 100 times (almost 230 flights - 1 failure). The 3.3 million pound thrust number bantered around is because they will add additional segments to the SRB - thus increasing it's thrust. Same will go for the very heavy LV that will use the same SRB's as strap-ons.

[DEChengst]

This is going to be a Saturn 5 class launcher. The version selected will be what was once called "Magnum" in delevopment studies years ago. A very powerful vehicle with large growth potential (ultimatly 200MT to LEO (!)).

The Russians could have done that with the Energia using eight instead of the normal four strap-ons. Too bad Russia went bankrupt and the rocket was scrapped after only two flight

[deglr6328]

Most supremely excellent images DEC!!! Thank you!

[RedSky]

Posted on this link is the (still not officially released, I think) study on Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle. Much of what was already seen in the NasaWatch articles by Keith Cowen is here... as well as the study text and some more diagrams.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/th...tid=310&start=1

[ronatu]

If, just if, USSR continue to exist and the Cold war wasn't be over all these boosters will be able to fly...

[Jeff7]

Just read it on CNN that NASA wants to send people back to the moon by 2018, spending $100 billion in the next 12 years. For that much money, they could put a sizable network of landers there. Or send several MSL's to Mars and a comm satellite for each one.

[Stephen]

tut - tut..... politics

Behave you two

Doug

[Guest_Myran_*]

Hello Stephen, those 4 first images do show more cold war politics than what some here might think.
The dark strap on Energia is nothing less than a Soviet attempt to launch one prototype of one orbital battle platform in the arms race to counter the US 'Star wars' program.

The other images show the Soviet shuttle Buran 'Snowstorm' which actually made it on one unmanned shake down trip into space, nowadays Buran (or possibly its sister ship) serves as a make believe spaceship in one amusement park in Moscow.

The other flight ready ship were mothballed together with its Energia booster in Baikonur.

Ps: I checked on the facts, and according to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ the second Buran that was mated to the booster rockets were first mothballed and later destroyed when the roof collapsed in 2002.

[Bob Shaw]

Hello Stephen, those 4 first images do show more cold war politics than what some here might think.
The dark strap on Energia is nothing less than a Soviet attempt to launch one prototype of one orbital battle platform in the arms race to counter the US 'Star wars' program.

The other images show the Soviet shuttle Buran 'Snowstorm' which actually made it on one unmanned shake down trip into space, nowadays Buran (or possibly its sister ship) serves as a make believe spaceship in one amusement park in Moscow.

The other flight ready ship were mothballed together with its Energia booster in Baikonur.

Ps: I checked on the facts, and according to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ the second Buran that was mated to the booster rockets were first mothballed and later destroyed when the roof collapsed in 2002.

Myran:

IMHO, the demise of Buran was in many ways far more of a tragedy than the forthcoming termination of the Shuttle. Unlike the USA, the USSR always had a production line in place for it's spacecraft and launchers - and the Buran/Energia system was intended to be almost wholly reuseable, too. Once the thing was up and running, the Soviets would have inevitably built more and more vehicles and boosters, until the economics of reuseability actually did kick in (in exactly the way they didn't with the Space Transportation System). Remember that the USSR developed the Soyuz launcher, and it was only when their state-directed economy went bust that investment in Energia faltered. Had Energia been allowed to prosper (or even the N-1!) then things would be so, so different...

...I hope that, at last, the USA has learned the Soviet lesson: it doesn't matter if the product of the Ukrainian State Tractor Collective is, er, not quite up to John Deere standards, so long as there's *thousands* of the suckers! And so long as you keep the same model (with improvements) in production for the next thirty years (for all you bikers, the word is 'Ural'!)...

Bob Shaw

[Rob Pinnegar]

Yeah, there's still plenty left on the Moon -- just determining how the heck it got there in the first place is still a big unanswered question. Right now, the giant-impact theory is the leading one, but (last time I checked) it still had some kinks that needed ironing out. There's a whole graveyard of theories of the Moon's origin so Giant Impact could, in theory at least, end up there as well.

The nearside/farside dichotomy also needs addressing -- another big question mark.

[dvandorn]

...The dark strap on Energia is nothing less than a Soviet attempt to launch one prototype of one orbital battle platform in the arms race to counter the US 'Star wars' program....

There is an interesting anecdote about that first Energia flight. It happened fairly soon before a major set of arms control talks between Gorbachev and Reagan, and Gorbachev was trying very hard to get Reagan to put "Star Wars" on the negotiating table. He wanted to convince Reagan that the Soviets had absolutely no interest in developing similar technologies for space-based warfare.

According to the anecdote, Gorbachev was informed of the test-flight of the Soviet battle station about fifteen minutes before it was launched. He was aghast -- the Americans would definitely know about the launch, since it was the first Energia launch of any kind, and the Americans were, as always, very interested in Soviet space launchers. And it wouldn't take the Americans long to figure out exactly what the payload was -- a test of the very same technologies Gorbachev didn't want Reagan to think the Soviet Union was developing!

So, again according to the story, Gorbachev instantly ordered the launch stopped. His orders came too late -- the vehicle was already on its way -- and so the ground controllers did the only thing they could do, they aborted the final stage and allowed the payload to fall harmlessly into the south Pacific after a suborbital flight. It was a successful test of the booster, and its failure to place its payload into orbit was unplanned but commanded.

It's a fact that the flight ended as a suborbital lob of the payload -- that much is verified by American monitors. Whether or not it was planned to end that way, however, is still the source of apocrypha...

-the other Doug

[Guest_Myran_*]

Bob Shaw said : IMHO, the demise of Buran was in many ways far more of a tragedy than the forthcoming termination of the Shuttle

I agree it was a pity that they put in so much work into Buran and then never actually used it for anything.
I remember that it was a big suprise for professionals and space buffs alike that it was launched unmanned.
The verdict back then was that Buran was to unsafe to use for human piloted flight.

I never have found any account on what actually ended the program that early, except the speculation it was to costly. So it might have been that they went for one single unmanned shot just to show result and get a piece of propaganda for their technological progress. The soviet propaganda machine certainly made a big deal of repeating 'we got a shuttle too!'.

dvandorn said: There is an interesting anecdote about that first Energia flight.

If the story is apocryphal or not it certainly reflects the fact that pesident Mikhail Gorbachev was out of touch with what was going on domestically since he put so much effort into international affairs and this was the reason for him eventually had to deal with a coup and loosing office. But im getting off track here.

Back then the launch of the the space battle station Polus (yes I remember the name now after some sleep) was built with some parts inherited from the space station Salyut.
The intelligence agencies in many countries run circles and wild rumours on what the Russians were up to was at a peak prior to the launch.

The Russianspaceweb site I mentioned earlier describes Polus as a laser weapon platform(1), but I tend to remember it was thought to carry either mockups of nuclear charges or targets to deploy for the surfaced based Soviet laser defence system(2).
So I have to agree dvandorn that theres some aphocrypha floating around both conserning Buran, Polus and Energia itself even today.

Notes:

1: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_military.html
See launch Skif-DM and the comment that its was supposed to be a 'A prototype of space-based laser'.
That description do not fit with my recollections from back then which was that it was supposed to carry mockups of tactical nuclear warheads.

2: The Soviet laser defence system was not intended to actually stop satellites or warheads, it was not powerful enough to destroy any target but intended to disable by 'blinding' the sensors of surveillance satellites and guidance systems only.

Edit: Removed one comment on N-1

[RedSky]

Here's another site with a lot of Energia-Buran photos and graphics:

http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm

If you click the image of the Energia-Buran stack on the left of the page, you'll go to a page about the Polyus battle station. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an English language version, and my Russian is not too good. But here's another old standby location about it (and anything else astronautical):

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm

[Guest_Myran_*]

Thank you RedSky for the links, the Astronautix website and images do indeed have one illustration with 'Nuclear space mines' and the 'Test target dispensers' but I have to backpedal somewhat giving 'Russianspaceweb' some credit since it also did have a self defence 'Sensor blinding laser'.

This unit not to be confused with the surface based blinding lasers the Soviets were testing about the same time which looked somewhat like big atronomical telescopes in surveillance images and that I mentioned in my earlier post.
(But I guess something half remembered about the blinding laser was nagging in the back of my head and that was the reason I mentioned that.)
So I feel confident on the accuracy of the description of Polyus on the astronautix webpage, excellent source for anyone who might be interested.

[ronatu]

New plans:

[djellison]

New plans:

I cant see ANY benefits compared to the '60s plans, certainly nothing that will make this any cheaper.

Doug

[Marcel]

I cant see ANY benefits compared to the '60s plans, certainly nothing that will make this any cheaper.

Doug

Oh, i do.

The concept of Apollo turned out to be pretty reliable. Secondly, the concept makes use of existing hardware and production facilities (mostly from Space Shuttle), which makes it more cost-efficient compared to brand new concepts. From the designing point of view, and the actual production of hardware as well.

Thirdly, there are substantial diferences, especially considering the scope of the mission itself. The aspect of looking beyond to Mars being the first. Sending robots in advance, supplying hardware, sending an orbiter, aiming at production of fuel on the spot, staying there for a week with 4 people.

I can't see how one could make things any cheaper. Yes, by going unmanned. But that's something we better not discuss (here).

[Guest_Sunspot_*]

WOW...... those images of the Buran are amazing......

So the Buran didnt have main engines like the shuttle - they were on the large external tank?

[RedSky]

WOW...... those images of the Buran are amazing......
So the Buran didnt have main engines like the shuttle - they were on the large external tank?

The Buran itself only had the equivalent of the U.S. Shuttle's two orbital manuvering system (OMS) engines at the back. The main engines for launch were on the aft of the tank. That's why the Energia stack could be used as heavy lift launcher without Buran.

Its funny that the poor Energia of 20 years ago was already very close to (if not better than) what is trying to be developed by the new Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle proposals. Instead of the two solid fuled SRBs, Energia typically used 4 strap-on liquid fuled boosters. It could even use 6 strap on boosters (or eight, if they ever went to an in-line vertical cargo carrier instead of the side attached cargo configuration).

BTW, the strap on liquid fueled boosters were meant to be reusable, which I never knew before. I always wondered what those dark, rectangular pod-like projections were outboard on the fore and aft of the strap on boosters. From the site http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm and its many fabulous graphics, I found that they housed landing struts. The boosters were to parachute down, being held horizontal (not vertical like the SRBs), and land on the extended struts.

[djellison]

Such a pity that the inginuity of the Russian plans of the time were not enabled with the cash that was available to US efforts.

Energia is what we need today - a flexible, part re-useable heavy lift vehicle.

The idea of 'fly back' boosters was touted, but never fully developed, as liquid fueled alternatives for the Shuttle's SRBs...and if it had gone into production, would have lead to the LV for the CEV being a liquid fueled vehicle

What we have here - is an Apollo-with-Shuttle-leftovers. The devil will ofcourse be in the detail. The ability to land 4 people on the surface is an improvement obviously.

It seems that the gauntlet has been thrown down by GWB, and instead of developing a series of innovative, money saving, new ideas to achieve his goals - the plan is simply to do whatever they can to do it quick enough. If it's a journey and not a race - then we should be packing properly before we go...if you see what I mean.

Doug

[ilbasso]

I believe that the plans to go to the Moon were announced in a speech something roughly akin to "Cheese, Gromit! We'll go where there's CHEESE!"

[RedSky]

BTW, the strap on liquid fueled boosters were meant to be reusable, which I never knew before.  I always wondered what those dark, rectangular pod-like projections were outboard on the fore and aft of the strap on boosters.  From the site http://www.buran.ru/htm/rocket.htm and its many fabulous graphics, I found that they housed landing struts.  The boosters were to parachute down, being held horizontal (not vertical like the SRBs), and land on the extended struts.

I finally (re)found the page showing the Energia boosters soft-landing sequence. Because I don't know Russian, its not easy to find my way around this site. But anyway, near the bottom of the page there is actually a graphic that shows the booster "landed" on its struts. Perhaps, today, they might have considered airbags instead of the struts, since any horizontal motion in the cutes' descent might make for a pretty tough time for struts.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/09-3.htm

And here is a page with photos showing the boosters being mass produced.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/08-3.htm

To think, 25 years ago, what U.S. space & military planners would have done to have had a look at those pictures that today, are mere historical curiosities.

[Bob Shaw]

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the Russioan language version of the Buran.ru site, all sorts of Energia variants, things with wings, the lot!

And a fairly large article on Polyus:

http://www.buran.ru/htm/36-3.htm

Still no images of what was under the shroud, though...

[djellison]

Just listened to Griffin's announcement, and basically, it ammounts to

"The president said we've got to do this thing, and this is about all we've got to do it with, so here it is...yeah, I know it looks like Apollo, but hey - The president said we've got to do it so there it is"

Doug

[RedSky]

Just listened to Griffin's announcement, and basically, it ammounts to

"The president said we've got to do this thing, and this is about all we've got to do it with, so here it is...yeah, I know it looks like Apollo, but hey - The president said we've got to do it so there it is"

Doug

Well, that's one of the main problems with U.S. politics and setting any long-range goals. The next president will likely decide to can it. I'm sure what we'll be left with is only the Apollo-CSM on a stick as the shuttle replacement.... and all the rest (which is deferred to later) will just be a non-start.

[ljk4-1]

Well, that's one of the main problems with U.S. politics and setting any long-range goals.  The next president will likely decide to can it.  I'm sure what we'll be left with is only the Apollo-CSM on a stick as the shuttle replacement.... and all the rest (which is deferred to later) will just be a non-start.

If this is going to be another Flags and Footprints Show where we end up abandoning the Dream again for another 40 years or even longer, then I would prefer we only send machines to the other worlds until we have a real reason to put people on the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.

Of course by then machines may make the need for humans in spaceships redundant if not outright unnecessary.

Ask yourselves honestly: Other than a sense of nostalgia or species preservation, if a machine with sophisticated AI can explore other worlds cheaper, safer, and more efficiently than a human - as will no doubt be the case by 2018, 2030 and beyond - why do we need to send humans to other worlds?

Look what the Mars Rovers have done, and even they do not have the latest computer software.

[GregM]

Just listened to Griffin's announcement, and basically, it ammounts to

"The president said we've got to do this thing, and this is about all we've got to do it with, so here it is...yeah, I know it looks like Apollo, but hey - The president said we've got to do it so there it is"

Doug

Doug, I’m gonna call you on this.

It seems that you have really been down on this plan from the get-go – and that’s OK, because everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, I see it is to the point of your colouring reality a bit here. Mike Griffin wanted to be the NASA administrator specifically because of the challenge and opportunity to lead the agency through the VSE (at least the beginnings) and the necessary re-invention of NASA, development of Constellation spacecraft, launch vehicles, and systems. He is making huge changes to the agency with his own personal stamp because he wants the process done his way – and this is because he really believes in this objective. This is not a man unenthusiastically or begrudgingly carrying out orders because the President of the United States ordered it to be done – as you have unequivocally implied. He is behind this thing 1000%. Your take on Griffin’s attitude to the program is just plain incorrect. If he sounded unenthusiastic, it is because he is putting in 12 to 15 hour days and is tired. He didn’t have this last weekend off.

However, like I also said – everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether this is the right thing to do is still open to opinion – as long as folks have their basic understanding of things correct – and that is the key. So, might I issue a challenge here. For those naysayers I ask you this: when you criticize, what do you think is a better alternative in carrying out this objective? Be realistic here as well. You still must follow the same realities that NASA must follow:

1) Modest or no budget increase for NASA.

2) Must “finish” the Space Station to some degree.

3) Must replace the Shuttle (or at least the Orbiter).

4) Must show some tangible results in 5-15 years.

5) Must be able to garner political support.

6) Must recognize realpolitiks of international cooperation.

On broader terms, if you don’t agree with the scope, objectives, or implications of the VSE then you can also state your case as to whether the VSE is even an appropriate objective:

1) Should Americans return to the Moon?

2) Should Americans go to Mars?

3) Should they just keep going with the Space Station?

4) Should they abandon human spaceflight all together?

5) Does America as a society have what it takes to even do this sort of thing any more?

As for me, I do not love all things about this program – I am no cheerleader. But I feel that it isn’t gonna get any better than this it terms of the future of human spaceflight. The programs as laid out is fairly conservative, but is technologically sound and safe as can reasonably be. After the Shuttle, lower risk must be a key factor. It is also has expansion opportunities for the future: if things do go well, more can be done with this program. I do not know if the social and political support for this program will remain strong enough for the next 10-15 years, but I am very sure that any other proposal that would have been more ambitious – and more expensive – would not survive.

[David]

I have not really thought this through in all of its technical and economic ramifications, but it seems to me that the advantage of having humans engaging in translunar space missions is that you could establish launch platforms from places other than Earth; and that means finding off-planet resources for the construction of vehicles, fuel, and so on. If all launches have to start from Earth, then we really are not exploring so much as reconnoitring -- indefinitely. For reconnoitring robots are as good as or better than humans. For actual exploring, not so much.
I've been looking at some of the older concepts of how space travel would develop, from the '50s or even earlier. These show some unity of concept and purpose which has been lacking in the American space program for some time: e.g., a space station that is not an end in itself, but serves as a platform for constructing space vehicles to go to the Moon and beyond.
Unfortunately, these plans never seem to get beyond Mars. They are fairly detailed on getting to the Moon, then sketchily extend the Moon-mission concept to Mars, and then stop.
Why not a more detailed plan for human exploration of the solar system? Such a plan would have to foresee an entirely new and partially self-sustaining economy which was not wholly Earth-based, in which different points in the solar system would serve as sources for raw materials for further exploration. Such a plan would help determine targets for primary exploration. Mars might not top the list: it's certainly one of the most interesting planets from an Earthly perspective, and close, but it's also got a relatively deep gravity well and IIRC is no better placed for exploring the further solar system than Earth is.
For that reason, I've found our speculative discussion of Ceres very absorbing. I suspect that Mars will certainly be one of the terminal points for space exploration, at the end of a branch but not on the main stem. I would rather see a plan set out for the next 100 years that would identify the most necessary and useful stepping stones for solar system exploration, rather than just working to an immediately attainable goal and then playing it by ear. That didn't work after Apollo, and I don't see it working now, even if political will and human courage carry us through to a Mars landing. I could easily see the aftermath of a Mars landing being another post-Apollo depression. But for me, before I die I'd like to see at least plausible plans made for humans proceeding to Ceres, Europa, Titan, and beyond.

[djellison]

4) Must show some tangible results in 5-15 years.

BINGO

Bush stood there and said that this is a Journey, not a race, but then stipulated dates for things to happen, thus turning it into a race. That's my problem with it.

Going to the Moon in the 2020's using launch hardwarehardware that was designed in the 1970's just isnt good enough. Throwing away 6 SSME's every time isnt really a great start. Dont rush it thru using Shuttle hardware. Take your time, develop something new, something that will - long term - save money.

I want to see people back on the moon, I want to see people going to mars - I really do. But he said that Hundreds of people have been working for months on this plan - and to be honest, it would have taken a school kid about half an hour using a 'STS for dummies' and 'Eye-Spy Apollo Hardware'

I dont know what the right way to do this is - but what we have here is the space equivilant of Scrap Heap challenge - and it seems like some sort of last Hurrah before canning the whole exercise alltogether.

Doug

[brianc]

Well, that's one of the main problems with U.S. politics and setting any long-range goals.  The next president will likely decide to can it.  I'm sure what we'll be left with is only the Apollo-CSM on a stick as the shuttle replacement.... and all the rest (which is deferred to later) will just be a non-start.

Completely agree with you on this, might just as well switch off any news on manned spaceflight, I will set my alarm clock for 2025 (if I'm still alive by then) and avoid all the hype, bulls**t and disappointments in between.

My prediction for 2025 will be ISS with another 5 'modules' installed (based on the likely shuttle launch rate of 1 per year and retirement in 2011) supplied by Progress and Soyuz spacecraft manned by a Russian and an American and visited by Donald Trump's and Richard Branson's offspring for vacation weeks. The real piss-off factor is that all this nonesense will take away all funding from a sensible unmanned exploration strategy.

[brianc]

BINGO

Bush stood there and said that this is a Journey, not a race, but then stipulated dates for things to happen, thus turning it into a race. That's my problem with it.

Going to the Moon in the 2020's using launch hardwarehardware that was designed in the 1970's just isnt good enough.  Throwing away 6 SSME's every time isnt really a great start.  Dont rush it thru using Shuttle hardware.  Take your time, develop something new, something that will - long term - save money. 

I want to see people back on the moon, I want to see people going to mars - I really do. But he said that Hundreds of people have been working for months on this plan - and to be honest, it would have taken a school kid about half an hour using a 'STS for dummies' and 'Eye-Spy Apollo Hardware'

I dont know what the right way to do this is - but what we have here is the space equivilant of Scrap Heap challenge - and it seems like some sort of last Hurrah before canning the whole exercise alltogether.

Doug

Doug

I think you have a script for a great new TV reality show

Space Scrap Heap Challenge fronted by Anika Rice and Stuart Hall with technical input from Craig of Red Dwarf fame

[djellison]

Rebranded as 'Junk Yard Wars' for the US market

Doug

[dvandorn]

Throwing away 6 SSME's every time isnt really a great start.

I think what you're more likely to see are "SSME-equivalent" engines. For one thing, in many of the proposed configurations, you wouldn't need to throttle these engines, and could design and build cheaper, less complex engines with the same full-thrust capabilities as SSMEs.

And even for those configurations that require throttlable SSME-type engines (those which side-mount the payloads), you can make them somewhat less complex if you don't plan on recovering and refurbishing them.

If all they're planning to do is build a bunch of SSMEs based exactly on the current design, then I agree, that's not a smart way to go. But I have extreme doubts that that's what they're going to end up doing. It just doesn't make economic sense to build a bunch of engines designed for refurbishment when you know you're just going to use them once and throw them away.

-the other Doug

[peter59]

"No one steps into the same river twice". Heraklit from Ephesos.

Manned spaceflights it is closed chapter, costs are too expensive.
Titan should be NASA's primary target.

[dvandorn]

Manned spaceflights it is closed chapter, costs are too expensive.
Titan should be NASA's primary target.

Manned spaceflight costs considerably less than what is spent on COSMETICS in the United States over the course of a year.

If you want to let your soul wither and die, then by all means, I suggest you make that choice for yourself. But as for myself, I'm going to the stars, or I'm going to die trying.

-the other Doug

[gpurcell]

"No one steps into the same river twice".  Heraklit from Ephesos.
 
Manned spaceflights it is closed chapter, costs are too expensive.
Titan should be NASA's primary target.

I love the rovers, don't get me wrong...but give three moderately competent geology grad students two weeks in Gusev Crater or Meridiani and they would have collected an order of magnitude more data than the rovers. Robotic missions make a lot of sense...but there will come a day when the questions we will want to ask, and the amount of data we will want to gather, simply cannot be addressed with a robotic mission, particularly one with a massive communications lag.

[ljk4-1]

I love the rovers, don't get me wrong...but give three moderately competent geology grad students two weeks in Gusev Crater or Meridiani and they would have collected an order of magnitude more data than the rovers.  Robotic missions make a lot of sense...but there will come a day when the questions we will want to ask, and the amount of data we will want to gather, simply cannot be addressed with a robotic mission, particularly one with a massive communications lag.

But how many more decades will it be before AI and other relevant technologies make a smart rover be just as capable as a human on Mars? Imagine where our computing power will be by the time humans are supposed to reach the Red Planet in person in the 2030s. And nanotechnology.

[dvandorn]

In my humble opinion, AI is a bit overblown. If you think we will make computers that can think and reason as well as human beings anytime within the next 20 years, I think you're being wildly optimistic.

Keep in mind, we have only the *tiniest* comprehension of how we, ourselves, think and reason. On an engineering level, anway. Yes, there are theories, but nothing that is accepted as "the whole story" of how biological information processing actually works.

And so, we have no model upon which to build microcomputer-based AI. So, we stumble along in AI research with menu-driven relational database lookup structuress and very limited abilities to judge events as anything except black or white. In other words, processes that obviously bear no relationship to how human (or other biological) information processing and reasoning operates.

And the more you build "fuzzy logic" into AI systems to try and expand beyond binary decision-making, the more frequently you get completely unexpected (and sometimes disastrous) results.

Rather like fusion power plants, I think that "truly intelligent AI" and "robots as smart as humans" will remain 10-25 years in the future for the next 50 to 100 years, at least... and postponing *true* exploration of the solar system until such things are successfully designed, built and operated means postponing such explorations until long, long after everyone here in this forum are safely and cozily dead and buried.

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

In my humble opinion, AI is a bit overblown.  If you think we will make computers that can think and reason as well as human beings anytime within the next 20 years, I think you're being wildly optimistic.

Keep in mind, we have only the *tiniest* comprehension of how we, ourselves, think and reason.  On an engineering level, anway.  Yes, there are theories, but nothing that is accepted as "the whole story" of how biological information processing actually works.

-the other Doug

Please note I am not assuming or saying we have to wait for something like HAL 9000 to come along to explore the Universe (especially not one like HAL). But I do think that well by the year 2030 AI will have advanced enough that it can do many of the things human explorers can do - and do it with less cost, less use of resource, and far less loss of human life.

I am an advocate of direct human exploration in space - though I must admit I strain hard to see the real purpose of the Space Shuttle and ISS. My concern is that a good deal of science in the meantime may be lost while we wait and use up resources to get astronauts on Mars that could have been done sooner and cheaper with a robot.

I do agree that a group of human geologists could do in a few weeks what it has taken the current rovers over a year to accomplish, but with the rapid pace of technology, I *can* see a rover with AI do a good science job on Mars and other worlds in just a few decades.

Imagine what we would NOT have by now if we waited for humans to directly explore Venus and Mars. And Venus is far more suited for robot probes, to be sure.

Why do I have this confidence in technology? Maybe because I have seen technologies like cell phones and laptops come into wide use that barely existed 10-20 years ago. Think of how primitive Mariner 4 was 40 years ago (22 crude images transmitted back at 8 bits per second!) compared to what we have now with the MERs and Cassini and Hayabusa - and even their technology is no longer state-of-the-art!

So just imagine what can happen in the next 40 years - or less.

http://singularity.com/

[mike]

I'd like to see digital AI pop up myself, and I'm sure it will eventually (though it may have to 'grow itself'), but I tend to think it's a way off.

It's also always possible that when it comes to consciousness organic chemistry is far and away the best way to implement it, and I wouldn't be shocked if our computers are never very 'intelligent' (insofar as making someone think it's human, ultimately)...

I agree that for the foreseeable future robotic probes, while safer by dint of not sending anyone anywhere, are rather limited. Even so, it's amazing how much data the Mars rovers and even Huygens have returned, and of course Cassini, Voyager, blah blah etc.

Put me in a rocket and send me to Mars. I don't even need to come back, though it would be nice, just for the accolades.

[Jeff7]

Yeah, there's still plenty left on the Moon -- just determining how the heck it got there in the first place is still a big unanswered question. Right now, the giant-impact theory is the leading one, but (last time I checked) it still had some kinks that needed ironing out. There's a whole graveyard of theories of the Moon's origin so Giant Impact could, in theory at least, end up there as well.

The nearside/farside dichotomy also needs addressing -- another big question mark.

As I see it, the dichotomy could be explained by the Giant Impact theory. The side facing Earth may have been the section that was closest Earth's core. It was molten or gooey when it was blasted away, and it remained hot for some time, giving the "seas" visible on the near side.
The far side is more heavily cratered, because it faces away from Earth all the time, and is thus always directly exposed to a shower of interplanetary debris.


Concerning AI, I saw something in Scientific American recently concerning some new development - a kind of circuit whose "transistors" are capable of both processing and storing information. I saw that as being very important, as that's what human brains seem to do. Neurons can both store information, but also transmit and process it. This technology, along with a good quantum processor (needed for better parallel processing capabilities) should allow for new programming types to take advantage of the power available. Granted, I believe that programming true intelligence will take either a lot of complex programming, or just a few simple, but very clever commands. For instance, how does a rover know what to remember and what not to? Our brains use VERY lossy compression. Look at a parking lot sometime. Now close your eyes. What color was the car nearest you? How many cars are in the parking lot? Where is your car parked?
How would a computer know what data to store? If it remembers everything, its storage media will be full in a few seconds. So it must know what is relevant, and to what it's relevant.

Yes, much work to be done, but I do think that these hurdles will be overcome. Maybe not within 20 years, but likely by the turn of the century. Technology is advancing quickly. Even 20 years is a long time.

[dvandorn]

As I see it, the dichotomy could be explained by the Giant Impact theory. The side facing Earth may have been the section that was closest Earth's core. It was molten or gooey when it was blasted away, and it remained hot for some time, giving the "seas" visible on the near side.
The far side is more heavily cratered, because it faces away from Earth all the time, and is thus always directly exposed to a shower of interplanetary debris.

I used to think that, too. But models show that debris would tend to hit both near and far sides of the Moon equally -- Earth slingshots debris into the near side as often as the Moon gets in the way of things headed for Earth. As evidence, basins are distributed fairly evenly across the entire Moon, near and far sides.

As far as the Moon's near side containing more of its mass than the far side, because of the Earth's gravity, as was once thought -- not true, either. The Moon's center of gravity (and mass) is actually a slight bit farther towards the farside surface than the nearside surface.

I imagine that the flooding of the nearside maria with basaltic lava flows had more to do with a short period of time defined by the dynamics of tidal lock than with the overall structure of the Moon. But, of course, I could be wrong... especially since laser ranging studies suggest strongly that the Moon's core is rotating at a slightly different speed, and at a slightly different inclination, from the rest of the Moon...

-the other Doug

[Stephen]

It seems that the gauntlet has been thrown down by GWB, and instead of developing a series of innovative, money saving, new ideas to achieve his goals - the plan is simply to do whatever they can to do it quick enough.  If it's a journey and not a race - then we should be packing properly before we go...if you see what I mean.

What sort of "innovative, money saving, new ideas" did you have in mind?

I was kinda hoping for a new heavy launch vehicle myself.

On the other hand I can see what Griffin is trying to do. He and his staff are trying to design their plans around what is available today and affordable today, not on what *might* be available tomorrow (once the visionaries get it off the drawing board). By doing so they are trying to learn from past mistakes. In particular the one NASA made (and has been bashed over the collective head about ever since) the last time a president gave NASA permission to come up with plans to send human beings beyond LEO.

The trouble with **new** ideas is that (being new) they take longer to develop than adapting old ones. You won't find new ones sitting on some designer's shelf somewhere waiting for NASA to come along and collect them. Being "innovative" and "new" probably also means the technology is untested, at least by the standards of a nation which does not want another Challenger or Columbia to live down.

They also have a habit of taking longer and being more expensive to bring to fruition than their advocates typically claim.

Consider the shuttle. It was new and innovative for its day. But it took longer to develop than something that had stuck closer to existing launch systems--eg I seem to recall they had a lot of trouble with the heat-resistant tiles--and once it was finally launched it turned out to be less capable than many had hoped for, had problems which led to the calamitous loss of two vehicles, and now appears to be in the process of being written off as a dead end (at least by those who want to explore the Moon or Mars rather than merely potter around in LEO).

I notice that Griffin has set what seem to be some fairly firm dates: first flight of the CEV by 2012 and first Moon landing by 2018. You could not really do that--not reliably--if the technology were too new and too untested. If the technology was not ready in time for the deadlines either corners would need to be cut or the deadlines would need to slip. That in turn would merely provide an excuse for detractors to scale back the plans altogether, just as both the shuttle (which originally was to be 100% reusable) and the space station were scaled back due to funding cuts.

======
Stephen

[paxdan]

I'm going to the stars, or I'm going to die trying.

11 words to sum up the best reason of all... Exploration (in all its guises) has made us what we are as a species; to give up on it would be to sacrifice part of what makes us human.

well said the other doug, well said indeed.

[David]

Easy come, easy go:

From The New York Times.

Lawmakers Prepare Plans to Finance Storm Relief
September 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend on Wednesday more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina.... At the top of a partial list of the potential cuts being circulated on Tuesday were previously suggested ideas like delaying the start of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage.... The list also proposed eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings.... "What House conservatives will demonstrate through Operation Offset is that there is more than enough room in the federal budget to provide for the needs of the families affected by Katrina without raising taxes," said a House Republican aide who is working with lawmakers on the proposals and who insisted on anonymity because the package would not be made public until Wednesday.

[um3k]

I'd rather them raise taxes. (Of course I don't yet have to pay them. )

[dvandorn]

Consider the shuttle. It was new and innovative for its day. But it took longer to develop than something that had stuck closer to existing launch systems...

That's true, but every single manned spacecraft in history has taken longer to develop than originally planned.

Just in terms of American spacecraft -- the original plans called for the first Mercury manned launches in 1959. The first Gemini flights were originally scheduled for 1963. And the first Apollo flights were originally scheduled for 1965. (These "original" flight dates are all what were scheduled at the very beginnings of the spacecraft development programs.)

For the record, the first manned Mercury flew in 1961, first manned Gemini in 1965 and first manned Apollo in 1968.

And of course, the Shuttle was supposed to fly in 1978 -- and didn't fly until 1981.

I would hope that Mike Griffin is aware of all of this, and is trying to have realistic schedules put together for CEV.

As for the potential delay or cancelation of the Moon/Mars Initiative to fund Katrina relief -- unless those same Congress-critters are willing to withdraw America from manned space flight entirely, they need to spend money on either a new manned spacecraft or a re-certification of the Shuttle fleet. Neither option is cheap, and the former allows for an expanded program into the 2010s and 2020s. They may delay the heavy lift launchers and the lunar lander programs, but I bet the CEV is going to go ahead on schedule.

-the other Doug

[4th rock from th...]

Just my humble opinion, but were does the ISS fit in all this?

I agree that the CEV must be built in order to provide the USA with acess to the station (unless you buy some Soyus ;-) ). So the imediate justification for this new vehicle is the ISS...

Without the Shuttle, the only way to finish the ISS (or at least install the modules that are already built) is to develop some new cargo launcher. Again, the imediate real justification is the ISS.

Then why wasn't this mentioned? Why say that you are going to the Moon when the new plans will actually allow you to acomplish more?

In my view the new plan should be advertised as a way to replace the Shuttle, service and finish the ISS and go to the Moon at some point in the future. Take it one step at a time, don't rush it...

Finally, I don't think that any nation could do much more than simply land on the Moon by itself. Things like a permanent outpost are only possible with international cooperation. Again look at the ISS. Good or bad, it's a reallity!

[RNeuhaus]

Below is an extract from the space.com http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zzb.html

The study lays out a deliberate, milestone-driven journey to the moon for NASA. Returning to the moon and sustaining a presence there will demonstrate humans can survive on another world, and will build confidence that astronauts can venture still farther into space and stay for longer periods. NASA's return to the moon will open opportunities for fundamental science in astrobiology, lunar geology, exobiology, astronomy and physics.

This means that after the first man's landing on the Moon by the year 2018-2020, there will be many more Moon's landing to set up a Moon base likes one of the Antartic scientific posts.

So there will be a long line of volunteers to earn $ from Moon currency...

Rodolfo

[ljk4-1]

NG Photo Gallery: NASA's New Moon Mission

http://ng.chtah.com/a/tBDMbhBASJ4TXAY6Ky7A...R.ASJ-ROiG/ngs8

Take a virtual trip to the moon with a new illustrated
mission plan and blast into the next generation of space travel.

[OWW]

What would be the purpose of a moonbase? You're stuck in one place. Sure, with a rover you can drive around a bit but that's it.
If the goal of the new program is to explore the many interesting sites Apollo couldn't get to, building a base is a waste of money imho.

Returning to the moon and sustaining a presence there will demonstrate humans can survive on another world, and will build confidence that astronauts can venture still farther into space and stay for longer periods. NASA's return to the moon will open opportunities for fundamental science in astrobiology, lunar geology, exobiology, astronomy and physics

Sounds to me the ISS could do much of that as well, before all the science was cut. Only difference is on the ISS the astronauts receive smaller doses of radiation and can return to Earth more safely.

Now, I'm all for exploring the moon, but these arguments for a moonbase are crazy.

[gallen_53]

What would be the purpose of a moonbase? You're stuck in one place. Sure, with a rover you can drive around a bit but that's it.
If the goal of the new program is to explore the many interesting sites Apollo couldn't get to, building a base is a waste of money imho.
Sounds to me the ISS could do much of that as well, before all the science was cut. Only difference is on the ISS the astronauts receive smaller doses of radiation and can return to Earth more safely.

Now, I'm all for exploring the moon, but these arguments for a moonbase are crazy. 

Most of us have heard the funny story about the camel poking his nose into the tent. I see this Apollo rerun as an example of the camel poking his nose into the tent. Quite frankly, I'd much prefer NASA to skip the moon and proceed directly to a manned Mars program (it would be cheaper in the long run to do this). However it is quite clear that proceeding directly to Mars is politically impossible. It is also quite clear that remaining in LEO with the useless ISS and dangerous Space Shuttle are prescriptions for the Space Program's termination. Doing this stupid moon thing and then evolving it into a viable Solar System exploration program seems to be the only option that is politically viable. The future course of action is clear: First get people on the Moon for short visits. Initially talk about lunar bases and resources but then side line that after the lunar landing technology has been demonstrated. Morph that technology into an asteroid exploration program, using NEO protection as the political justification. Work our way out to Phobos and Demos. We then establish a base on one of those moons. From a martian moon, we then go down to the Martian surface. Once on Mars, we establish a permanent presence on Mars based upon in situ resources.

This process is loaded with technical and political booby traps. These are the two worst:

1) We lock ourselves into a technology that only works for lunar exploration (this killed Apollo).

2) We believe our own propaganda that the Moon is a legitimate destination for permanet bases and large scale exploration.

Avoiding booby trap 1) is going to be really hard. The Apollo Command Module (CM) has a fairly poor lift-over-drag ratio and a very narrow entry corridor for Earth return. The CM barely worked for the Apollo program and could not work for Mars return. If we lock ourselves into an Apollo CM clone for the CEV then We are Screwed!! The R&D costs to upgrade the CEV for Mars return will probably be politically unjustifiable. We'd be locked into lunar exploration only and that's probably not politically sustainable.

Booby trap 2) is a real killer. This is like saying the Space Shuttle will provide cheap and reliable access to Space --or-- the ISS will be the 21st century's premiere science laboratory. The system keeps repeating the same lie over-and-over again until it can't escape from it (the downside of Goebbel's strategy). Then the fig leaf falls aways as it did after Columbia burned up and we (the space exploration community) are left standing there naked in front of God and everyone. It is vital that lunar exploration be rapidly transitioned into asteroid exploration (no bases on the moon!). However that won't be possible if we're restricted to only lunar exploration by our Earth return technology.

Decisions are being made now that will determine the long term viability of the Space Program (both manned and unmanned). I fear that the easy choices that we are making now will ultimately kill the Space Program.

Gary

[ljk4-1]

From Paul Glister's Web site Centauri Dreams:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/2005.09.18_...l#1127332694978

Man or Machine on the Outer Planets?

New technologies, rarely foreseen by 'futurists,' often change everything. Just as science fiction could not predict the PC, so visionaries like Arthur C. Clarke could not predict the developments in electronics that would make his idea of geostationary relay satellites practicable. Yes, Clarke dreamed up the idea of such satellites, but he was talking about manned space stations handling the abundant telecommunications traffic that was to come. In a mere 15 years, it would become possible for radio technology to bring Clarke's ideas to fruition, just as Earth observation, astronomy and military reconaissance would be performed by unmanned satellites.

Now we speculate about proposed manned expeditions to Mars, but is the future human or robotic as we push into the outer Solar System? Bob Parkinson tackles the subject in an essay in the March/April issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Consider the march of machinery in the years since the first manned spacecraft. People are still in low Earth orbit (other than the still unduplicated Moon landings), but every planet except Pluto has been studied by robotic probes, and the New Horizons mission will leave for Pluto as early as this January.

[Bob Shaw]

Let's assume that the 'new' NASA Lunar vehicles are built, and that they fly to the Moon as advertised.

I'm now going to whisper two words which have appeared nowhere that I've yet seen, but be warned: they may get you excited.

OK?

Ready for it?

SIM Bay!

Yeeeeeeeeehaaa!

[dvandorn]

The Apollo Command Module (CM) has a fairly poor lift-over-drag ratio and a very narrow entry corridor for Earth return.  The CM  barely worked for the Apollo program and could not work for Mars return.

From where do you get this? The Apollo CM worked marvelously well for lunar return. And at translunar speeds (and Mars-return speeds, as well) your entry corridor for a non-fatal entry would be identical for a winged vehicle that has a lot of cross-range capability as it would for a blunt re-entry body with only a limited amount of lift.

And you pay the weight penalty for taking those wings (or whatever extra mass you load on to achieve greater lift and greater cross-range capability) all the way to Mars and back. THAT is what would be crazy.

When you're coming back from Mars, you don't really want to have to worry about whether or not you can hit the centerline on a runway somewhere. You just want to get safely down onto any ocean or desert or prairie that's flat enough to allow for a safe landing.

Besides, the entry corridor on the Earth end of the trip is actually no more stringent in terms of accuracy than the MOI corridor -- especially if you use aerobraking to help you insert yourself into Mars orbit.

Again, what are your sources for insisting that the CM design "barely" survived lunar return and is incapable of surviving a return from Mars?

-the other Doug